PDA

View Full Version : Jacque Jones


White Sox Randy
01-25-2007, 01:16 PM
I think the Sox would win more games in 2007 if Jacque Jones were the leftfielder.

The Sox could keep the Anderson/Erstad situation in center.

Jones should not be playing RF but he is very adequate in LF and the guy can hit. He also has some speed and is completely healthy.

I would guess that he could hit about .290 30 90 with the Sox easily. That's far better production than they will get with the mix that they are talking about.

Plus, he takes pressure off people by not having to rush or play people that are not totally healthy yet like Pods and Erstad. Also, they shouldn't feel the need to rush Sweeney or even Anderson so much yet.

Lastly, they get another guy that wants to beat the Twins. The flubs are dying to get rid of him. What would the Sox have to give up to get him ?

There's no doubt that he can hit, hit with power, play LF, has decent speed, is totally healthy and available. He has a few flaws but I like him better than what the Sox have now.

bryPt
01-25-2007, 01:19 PM
please, no.:angry:

MUsoxfan
01-25-2007, 01:21 PM
The Cubs can keep him

chisoxmike
01-25-2007, 01:21 PM
HELL NO!

kjhanson
01-25-2007, 01:21 PM
He struck out 116 times last year. He walked 35 times last year. Corner outfielders hitting 25 home runs and driving in 80 runs are a dime a dozen. And well, Jacque made a little over 4 million last year.

gobears1987
01-25-2007, 01:22 PM
:dtroll:

Uh, NO!

IndianWhiteSox
01-25-2007, 01:22 PM
I think the Sox would win more games in 2007 if Jacque Jones were the leftfielder.

The Sox could keep the Anderson/Erstad situation in center.

Jones should not be playing RF but he is very adequate in LF and the guy can hit. He also has some speed and is completely healthy.

I would guess that he could hit about .290 30 90 with the Sox easily. That's far better production than they will get with the mix that they are talking about.

Plus, he takes pressure off people by not having to rush or play people that are not totally healthy yet like Pods and Erstad. Also, they shouldn't feel the need to rush Sweeney or even Anderson so much yet.

Lastly, they get another guy that wants to beat the Twins. The flubs are dying to get rid of him. What would the Sox have to give up to get him ?

There's no doubt that he can hit, hit with power, play LF, has decent speed, is totally healthy and available. He has a few flaws but I like him better than what the Sox have now.

That sounds all fine and dandy but after pods comes back:

http://www.cantstopthebleeding.com/C1882343933/E1457185025/Media/harrelson1.jpg
"Where's He Gonna Play?"

FedEx227
01-25-2007, 01:22 PM
Do we REALLY need more outfielders. Realistically we have about 80 potential outfielders (Sweeney, Pods, Erstad, Anderson, Mackowiak, Owens, Ozuna, Dye, Fields?) the last thing we need is another one.

I do think Jones is a good player, just not a great fit for the Sox. I would say no to a Jones pickup number one because of his yearly horrendous OBP. Although he did have a .334 last year, he has not had trouble putting together .315-.320 OBP season. Add in the annual 110+ Ks and ouch. Really, all he would add is another free-swinging powerhitter. We have enough of those 3-6.

IndianWhiteSox
01-25-2007, 01:24 PM
Do we REALLY need more outfielders. Realistically we have about 80 potential outfielders (Sweeney, Pods, Erstad, Anderson, Mackowiak, Owens, Ozuna, Dye, Fields?) the last thing we need is another one.

I do think Jones is a good player, just not a great fit for the Sox. I would say no to a Jones pickup number one because of his yearly horrendous OBP. Although he did have a .334 last year, he has not had trouble putting together .315-.320 OBP season. Add in the annual 110+ Ks and ouch. Really, all he would add is another free-swinging powerhitter. We have enough of those 3-6.

But he would be great in CF to replace Anderson!

kjhanson
01-25-2007, 01:25 PM
Lastly, they get another guy that wants to beat the Twins. The flubs are dying to get rid of him. What would the Sox have to give up to get him ?



I'm pretty sure all 25 men on the roster want to beat the Twins. 26 would make a crowd.

MUsoxfan
01-25-2007, 01:26 PM
WSRandy, I'm surprised you didn't make a case for Jeromy Burnitz. He's very much the same player. They both contribute nothing but strikeouts, but Burnitz would be cheaper:cool:

Ziggy S
01-25-2007, 01:33 PM
No thanks, this brings more K's to the lineup and still doesn't give us at least an adequate leadoff hitter that we need, depending on Pods' recovery and effectiveness.

Save McCuddy's
01-25-2007, 01:35 PM
He struck out 116 times last year. He walked 35 times last year. Corner outfielders hitting 25 home runs and driving in 80 runs are a dime a dozen. And well, Jacque made a little over 4 million last year.

And Jermaine Dye struck out 118 times. BA struck out 90 times in far fewer at bats with far less production.

I agree with Randy that Jones is a legitimate veteran presence and potentially productive for us. He's alot better suited to deliver depth to the outfield than mackowiak who looks a bit like Merrill Hodge with a concussion trying to circle under fly balls.

FedEx227
01-25-2007, 01:39 PM
And Jermaine Dye struck out 118 times.

Jermaine Dye 2006 season: 44 hr, 120 RBI, .315/.385/.622, 118 Ks in 539 AB
Jacque Jones 2006 season: 27 hr, 81 RBI, .285/.334/.499, 116 Ks in 533 AB

I'll let JD strike out twice more if he can give me 17 more HR, 39 more RBI, .30 better in BA, 51 points better in OBP, .123 more in SLG.

Don't compare the two, you're just embrassing yourself.

SOXPHILE
01-25-2007, 01:40 PM
Oh dear Lord...........

White Sox Randy
01-25-2007, 01:41 PM
WSRandy, I'm surprised you didn't make a case for Jeromy Burnitz. He's very much the same player. They both contribute nothing but strikeouts, but Burnitz would be cheaper:cool:


Good comparison. Except Jones is 6 years younger and has a lifetime BA about 30 points HIGHER.

Did I forget to mention that Jones has been AWESOME in the post season ? In 60 postseason games he hit 12 homers and batted.331 with a .372 OBP.

kraut83
01-25-2007, 01:42 PM
The Sox don't need a low OBP corner OF with a noodle arm. I'll take Erstad, thank you.

IndianWhiteSox
01-25-2007, 01:42 PM
Jermaine Dye 2006 season: 44 hr, 120 RBI, .315/.385/.622, 118 Ks in 539 AB
Jacque Jones 2006 season: 27 hr, 81 RBI, .285/.334/.499, 116 Ks in 533 AB

I'll let JD strike out twice more if he can give me 17 more HR, 39 more RBI, .30 better in BA, 51 points better in OBP, .123 more in SLG.

Don't compare the two, you're just embrassing yourself.

Don't forget Jockstrap played in Wrigley and he still put up those great numbers.

White Sox Randy
01-25-2007, 01:47 PM
Jones would likely have his best season playing at the cell and with this Sox lineup.

It won't be long after watching the Ozuna/Anderson/Erstad/Mackowiack/Pods show that we'll wish we had a solid leftfielder like Jones on this team.

You're gonna say Jones has a low OBP and high strikeout rate ? That's ridiculous. Compared to these guys ? They're about the same with NO POWER and they're not going to hit close to .300 or near 30 homers.

Save McCuddy's
01-25-2007, 01:49 PM
Jermaine Dye 2006 season: 44 hr, 120 RBI, .315/.385/.622, 118 Ks in 539 AB
Jacque Jones 2006 season: 27 hr, 81 RBI, .285/.334/.499, 116 Ks in 533 AB

I'll let JD strike out twice more if he can give me 17 more HR, 39 more RBI, .30 better in BA, 51 points better in OBP, .123 more in SLG.

Don't compare the two, you're just embrassing yourself.

I wasn't comparing the two -- simply pointing out that isolating a statistic like strikeouts is a useless and misleading way of evaluating a player. If you want to compare Dye and Jones however, take a look at their career paths prior to last year's anomaly for JD. Hope it doesn't embarrass you.

JUribe1989
01-25-2007, 01:56 PM
He proves that average can be a deceptive stat. He is a worthless person to have on your team. We don't need some idiot flipping his bat every time he hits a fly ball to center. He has a below average arm in right, and I will always consider him an enemy of the Sox. If that makes me stupid then so be it, but I would never want Jock Strap on this team.

White Sox Randy
01-25-2007, 01:58 PM
The Sox don't need a low OBP corner OF with a noodle arm. I'll take Erstad, thank you.

Too bad Erstad's OBP won't be any higher.

Pods, Anderson and Mack. all strikeout about as much as Jones.

Erstad, Pods and Ozuna have no power. Mack. and Anderson some. Jones has a lot.

Erstad and Pods are not healthy. Jones has been healthy and played regularly thruout his career.

Only Anderson and Erstad are better defensively than Jones.

Jones, Ersatd, Ozuna, Pods and Mack. all have about the same OBP.

Jones has played in the post season the most and with great success.

jenn2080
01-25-2007, 01:58 PM
I think the Sox would win more games in 2007 if Jacque Jones were the leftfielder.

The Sox could keep the Anderson/Erstad situation in center.

Jones should not be playing RF but he is very adequate in LF and the guy can hit. He also has some speed and is completely healthy.

I would guess that he could hit about .290 30 90 with the Sox easily. That's far better production than they will get with the mix that they are talking about.

Plus, he takes pressure off people by not having to rush or play people that are not totally healthy yet like Pods and Erstad. Also, they shouldn't feel the need to rush Sweeney or even Anderson so much yet.

Lastly, they get another guy that wants to beat the Twins. The flubs are dying to get rid of him. What would the Sox have to give up to get him ?

There's no doubt that he can hit, hit with power, play LF, has decent speed, is totally healthy and available. He has a few flaws but I like him better than what the Sox have now.


I am going think about this for a minute.......Yeah I am going to go with no. Dude you seriously come up with some off the wall ****. The Cubs can keep Jones.

CashMan
01-25-2007, 01:59 PM
Brilliant post WhiteSox Randy, Riddle me this, Riddle me that, who would lead off with a bat?

White Sox Randy
01-25-2007, 02:03 PM
Brilliant post WhiteSox Randy, Riddle me this, Riddle me that, who would lead off with a bat?

Firstly, thanks for the compliment.

Riddle me this cash, who's gonna play with Pods and Erstad on the DL ?

IndianWhiteSox
01-25-2007, 02:06 PM
Too bad Erstad's OBP won't be any higher.

Pods, Anderson and Mack. all strikeout about as much as Jones.

Erstad, Pods and Ozuna have no power. Mack. and Anderson some. Jones has a lot.

Erstad and Pods are not healthy. Jones has been healthy and played regularly thruout his career.

Only Anderson and Erstad are better defensively than Jones.

Jones, Erstad, Ozuna, Pods and Mack. all have about the same OBP.

Jones has played in the post season the most and with great success.

A few things Randy my friend:

1.) Jones 3 Playoff Apperances(2002-2004), Erstad also 3 playoff appearances(2002,2004 &2005)

2.) Jones can play LF and maybe RF, but CF would be stretching it. On the other hand Erstad can play 1B, CF and LF.

3.) Jones as a possible platoon cost $4M as opposed to Erstad a possible platoon makes only about $750K.

The point is that Darin Erstad makes this team a lot better than Jockstrap.

IndianWhiteSox
01-25-2007, 02:09 PM
Brilliant post WhiteSox Randy, Riddle me this, Riddle me that, who would lead off with a bat?
:roflmao::roflmao:

White Sox Randy
01-25-2007, 02:17 PM
A few things Randy my friend:

1.) Jones 3 Playoff Apperances(2002-2004), Erstad also 3 playoff appearances(2002,2004 &2005)

2.) Jones can play LF and maybe RF, but CF would be stretching it. On the other hand Erstad can play 1B, CF and LF.

3.) Jones as a possible platoon cost $4M as opposed to Erstad a possible platoon makes only about $750K.

The point is that Darin Erstad makes this team a lot better than Jockstrap.

That was a REALLY lame argument. Erstad makes the Sox better because he's cheaper and he's played almost the same amount of post season games.

Only he's had much less success. Oh yeah, and Erstad can't hit, can't play defense like he used to and will contribute nothing from the disabled list.

But, you completely missed my point besides. I never said that the Sox shouldn't keep Erstad or that Jones should play anything but leftfield or that Jones should be platooned.

IndianWhiteSox
01-25-2007, 02:22 PM
That was a REALLY lame argument. Erstad makes the Sox better because he's cheaper and he's played almost the same amount of post season games.

Only he's had much less success. Oh yeah, and Erstad can't hit, can't play defense like he used to and will contribute nothing from the disabled list.

But, you completely missed my point besides. I never said that the Sox shouldn't keep Erstad or that Jones should play anything but leftfield or that Jones should be platooned.

Randy my buddy, there is NO ROOM for JOCKSTRAP RIGHT NOW! And if you do acquire him who do you get rid of? Pods, Mack, Erstad? At this rate you should resurrect the Carl Crawford threads, I mean at least that's a guy re-writing your roster for. And by the way... I remember Erstad being a Table-setter for a World Champion, something that can't be said about Jockstrap.

Flight #24
01-25-2007, 02:26 PM
Only he's had much less success. Oh yeah, and Erstad can't hit, can't play defense like he used to and will contribute nothing from the disabled list.


Erstad's value lies significantly in 2 areas in which Jones can't even come close to touching him:
1) Defense at critical defensive positions for the Sox. Yes, Ersta'd not the defender he once was. But he once was a gold-glove caliber CF. Now he's merely decent. Meanwhile, Jones in CF would be worse than Mackowiak.

2) Execution & Attitude: Erstad will hit fly balls, bunt, etc as needed. He'll also hustle his ass off and get others to do the same. Jones....not so much.

Add the cost factor plus the "sign versus trade for" factor.

White Sox Randy
01-25-2007, 02:29 PM
Randy my buddy, there is NO ROOM for JOCKSTRAP RIGHT NOW! And if you do acquire him who do you get rid of? Pods, Mack, Erstad? At this rate you should resurrect the Carl Crawford threads, I mean at least that's a guy re-writing your roster for. And by the way... I remember Erstad being a Table-setter for a World Champion, something that can't be said about Jockstrap.

I remember Bob Gibson pitching a World Series shutout. Should he be our 5th starter ?

Pods will be on the DL for atleast the first 2 months of the season. If and when he comes back, the Sox can deal with the roster spot. Probably Erstad will be ready for the DL by then.

Bottomline: Sox win more games this year with a legit leftfielder that can hit,hit for power, stay healthy, play adequate D and run a bit - versus the bunch of nothing that they have now.

White Sox Randy
01-25-2007, 02:33 PM
Erstad's value lies significantly in 2 areas in which Jones can't even come close to touching him:
1) Defense at critical defensive positions for the Sox. Yes, Ersta'd not the defender he once was. But he once was a gold-glove caliber CF. Now he's merely decent. Meanwhile, Jones in CF would be worse than Mackowiak.

2) Execution & Attitude: Erstad will hit fly balls, bunt, etc as needed. He'll also hustle his ass off and get others to do the same. Jones....not so much.

Add the cost factor plus the "sign versus trade for" factor.

Another guy that doesn't read. I said Jones plays LEFTFIELD. I said KEEP Erstad. Is it too much to ask someone to read the post before they write a paragraph about why they disagree with it ?

oeo
01-25-2007, 02:39 PM
I think the Sox would win more games in 2007 if Jacque Jones were the leftfielder.

The Sox could keep the Anderson/Erstad situation in center.

Jones should not be playing RF but he is very adequate in LF and the guy can hit. He also has some speed and is completely healthy.

I would guess that he could hit about .290 30 90 with the Sox easily. That's far better production than they will get with the mix that they are talking about.

Plus, he takes pressure off people by not having to rush or play people that are not totally healthy yet like Pods and Erstad. Also, they shouldn't feel the need to rush Sweeney or even Anderson so much yet.

Lastly, they get another guy that wants to beat the Twins. The flubs are dying to get rid of him. What would the Sox have to give up to get him ?

There's no doubt that he can hit, hit with power, play LF, has decent speed, is totally healthy and available. He has a few flaws but I like him better than what the Sox have now.

Excuse me while I blow chunks all over this idea.

:puking:

IndianWhiteSox
01-25-2007, 02:42 PM
I remember Bob Gibson pitching a World Series shutout. Should he be our 5th starter ?

Pods will be on the DL for at least the first 2 months of the season. If and when he comes back, the Sox can deal with the roster spot. Probably Erstad will be ready for the DL by then.

Bottomline: Sox win more games this year with a legit leftfielder that can hit,hit for power, stay healthy, play adequate D and run a bit - versus the bunch of nothing that they have now.

If Bob Gibson still has movement and velocity on his fastball than why not?

Come on Randy, you're saying I'm not reading and all when you have yet to answer the question I asked.

How can you assume that Pods will be on the DL for the first 2 months of the year when he's having the surgery before February?

Erstad, OK maybe that might be true, but at that rate why would Jockstrap be such a great acquisition when we all know he's a lazy bum who can't handle criticism. If Erstad or Pods happens to go on the DL for a while that's when we could have I don't know....Sweeney come up and see if he can be the leadoff man for a bit.

It's OK to propose names and all but you also have to take into consideration at what the sCrUBS would hold you hostage for.

CashMan
01-25-2007, 02:45 PM
If Jones is the LF, WHO LEADS OFF?

oeo
01-25-2007, 02:48 PM
If Jones is the LF, WHO LEADS OFF?

Jim Thome, duh.

oeo
01-25-2007, 02:51 PM
I remember Bob Gibson pitching a World Series shutout. Should he be our 5th starter ?

Pods will be on the DL for atleast the first 2 months of the season. If and when he comes back, the Sox can deal with the roster spot. Probably Erstad will be ready for the DL by then.

Bottomline: Sox win more games this year with a legit leftfielder that can hit,hit for power, stay healthy, play adequate D and run a bit - versus the bunch of nothing that they have now.

Where did you pull that from...your ass?

The latest I heard was May 1st...can you supply a link that says anything later?

Flight #24
01-25-2007, 02:51 PM
Another guy that doesn't read. I said Jones plays LEFTFIELD. I said KEEP Erstad. Is it too much to ask someone to read the post before they write a paragraph about why they disagree with it ?

Thats not realistic. Neither is your idea to put Erstad on the DL when Pods is ready (likely to be within a month of the season starting).

Your team has 5 guys whose primary position is OF: Dye, Anderson, Erstad, Podsednik, Jones. And you still have Ozuna & Mackowiak on the bench who can play LF and also various IF spots. Add in Cintron and Hall and that's a nice 6-man bench.

Are you going with a 5-man bullpen? 6 but a 4-man rotation? Who are you going to cut then? Anderson? Podsednik? Mackowiak? Ozuna?

Practically speaking, you're talking about either Jones or Erstad/Anderson/Mackowiak/Ozuna/Podsednik. Ignoring cost I'm not sure I make any of those swaps. Factoring in salary and trade cost - no chance.

Craig Grebeck
01-25-2007, 02:52 PM
I agree with Randy. What is the rationale for preferring Erstad? Is it his lack of power? Is it his inability to put together one average season in his last five? Is it that he can't hit? Is it that he's played in less games than everyone's least favorite player (J.D. Drew, who many accuse of stealing money while Erstad is a gamer for playing in less games and "stealing" more money) over the last four years?

Erstad has absolutely no net value.

oeo
01-25-2007, 02:54 PM
I agree with Randy. What is the rationale for preferring Erstad? Is it his lack of power? Is it his inability to put together one average season in his last five? Is it that he can't hit? Is it that he's played in less games than everyone's least favorite player (J.D. Drew, who many accuse of stealing money while Erstad is a gamer for playing in less games and "stealing" more money) over the last four years?

Erstad has absolutely no net value.

Personally, I think you and Randy are the same person. :dunno:

Either that, or you're long lost brothers.

Flight #24
01-25-2007, 02:57 PM
I agree with Randy. What is the rationale for preferring Erstad? Is it his lack of power? Is it his inability to put together one average season in his last five? Is it that he can't hit? Is it that he's played in less games than everyone's least favorite player (J.D. Drew, who many accuse of stealing money while Erstad is a gamer for playing in less games and "stealing" more money) over the last four years?

Erstad has absolutely no net value.

It's his ability to play a decent (not his former stellar) CF and a good LF. Add in his ability to execute offensively, his attitude, and his cost.

I find it hard to believe that there's someone out there who thinks this is a ridiculously bad deal. Even if he comes in, hits .200, and gets cut - it costs $750k. This is really a cause for concern? Remember - Ozzie played Mack in CF because he was hitting and Anderson wasn't. If Erstad's not hitting, they'll find someone else to play LF.

Hell - if he ends up as a defensive replacement for Pods and an occasional bunter, that's a great price.

Domeshot17
01-25-2007, 02:59 PM
WOW, I wish I had the last 2 minutes of my life back. Did you not learn from 2005, when we won WITH Pods and WITHOUT Carlos Lee. Because that it was Jaque Jones is, a VERY VERY VERY Poor Mans Carlos Lee. What was he doing in the first month and half of the season when the Cubs looked like they might be in it? Hitting the mendoza line, being boo'd out of RF at Wrigley and swinging as hard as he could at every pitch? When did he get hot? When the team was spiraling into last place. We don't need another home run hitter, we need a table setter.

Whats next, you want ERROR-MISS Ramirez at third instead of Crede. Why don't we just trade rosters with the cubs? You wan't those type of ball players, go hang out at Wrigley.

IndianWhiteSox
01-25-2007, 03:00 PM
It's his ability to play a decent (not his former stellar) CF and a good LF. Add in his ability to execute offensively, his attitude, and his cost.

I find it hard to believe that there's someone out there who thinks this is a ridiculously bad deal. Even if he comes in, hits .200, and gets cut - it costs $750k. This is really a cause for concern? Remember - Ozzie played Mack in CF because he was hitting and Anderson wasn't. If Erstad's not hitting, they'll find someone else to play LF.

Hell - if he ends up as a defensive replacement for Pods and an occasional bunter, that's a great price.

Thats not realistic. Neither is your idea to put Erstad on the DL when Pods is ready (likely to be within a month of the season starting).

Your team has 5 guys whose primary position is OF: Dye, Anderson, Erstad, Podsednik, Jones. And you still have Ozuna & Mackowiak on the bench who can play LF and also various IF spots. Add in Cintron and Hall and that's a nice 6-man bench.

Are you going with a 5-man bullpen? 6 but a 4-man rotation? Who are you going to cut then? Anderson? Podsednik? Mackowiak? Ozuna?

Practically speaking, you're talking about either Jones or Erstad/Anderson/Mackowiak/Ozuna/Podsednik. Ignoring cost I'm not sure I make any of those swaps. Factoring in salary and trade cost - no chance.


Thank you FLIGHT! THE VOICE OF REASON EVERYONE!

Craig Grebeck
01-25-2007, 03:04 PM
It's his ability to play a decent (not his former stellar) CF and a good LF. Add in his ability to execute offensively, his attitude, and his cost.

I find it hard to believe that there's someone out there who thinks this is a ridiculously bad deal. Even if he comes in, hits .200, and gets cut - it costs $750k. This is really a cause for concern? Remember - Ozzie played Mack in CF because he was hitting and Anderson wasn't. If Erstad's not hitting, they'll find someone else to play LF.

Hell - if he ends up as a defensive replacement for Pods and an occasional bunter, that's a great price.
Ozzie didn't play BA because he was a rookie. There's no way in hell that Darin will be treated like BA was last season. It will most likely be his LF job to lose, and even if he performs like he has for, well the last six seasons, he'll still get it based on a flimsy reputation.

He takes up a spot on our 25 man that could have been given to a much, much more productive player.

Domeshot17
01-25-2007, 03:13 PM
Ozzie didn't play BA because he was a rookie. There's no way in hell that Darin will be treated like BA was last season. It will most likely be his LF job to lose, and even if he performs like he has for, well the last six seasons, he'll still get it based on a flimsy reputation.

He takes up a spot on our 25 man that could have been given to a much, much more productive player.

Awesome theory. And while Erstad agrees to a deal knowing he is the 4th OF and back up 1b, I wonder how Jaque would react to that. HMMMMMM, I bet he would bitch and piss and moan just like he does everywhere he is. Send him to the Brewers, atleast there he could get some cheese to go with his whine.

maurice
01-25-2007, 03:17 PM
He takes up a spot on our 25 man that could have been given to a much, much more productive player.

Name every "much, much more productive player" who could (1) play for the Sox, (2) back up CF, and (3) cost $750 or less.

Don't bother listing (1) guys who never would be asked to sit on the bench in 2007 (especially Sweeney), or (2) Terrero because nobody here believes that he's "much, much more productive" than Erstad no matter what PECOTA says.

Flight #24
01-25-2007, 03:20 PM
Ozzie didn't play BA because he was a rookie. There's no way in hell that Darin will be treated like BA was last season. It will most likely be his LF job to lose, and even if he performs like he has for, well the last six seasons, he'll still get it based on a flimsy reputation.

He takes up a spot on our 25 man that could have been given to a much, much more productive player.

Nice strawman there. BA's no longer a rookie, neither is Podsednik. Or is your theory that Ozzie will play the most senior guy available?

Please do tell who this "much, much more productive player" is? I can only assume you're referring to Sweeney/Fields, who are significant question marks - and having just seen Anderson hit below .200 for a few months last year, I don't think it's smart to rely on them.

Plus, you completely ignore the value of Erstad as a serviceable CF, something that is not currently on the roster if Anderson struggles again. Sweeney can't be the 4th OF because he needs ABs either in the bigs or in AAA (not to mention the question mark because he's a rookie). Mackowiak may be a better hitter, but he's nowhere close to the defender Erstad is even now - especially in CF.

Your argument boils down to "Ozzie will play him every day even if he sucks". If you really think that, then you should be ranting about them firing Ozzie. If you believe Ozzie isn't a moron, then this almost HAS to be a good deal because if it works out, great and if it doesn't, you can cut him and lose nothing.

Craig Grebeck
01-25-2007, 03:33 PM
Much, much more productive player? Hmmm...Rob Mackowiak. He seems to be the odd man out, and it is a travesty. He is worlds better than Erstad. We shouldn't be concerned about money when you consider we just gave Pods a pretty good contract when he's in steady decline and might not be able to walk when spring training starts.

What would the best move have been? Let some other team have Erstad.

AuroraSoxFan
01-25-2007, 03:35 PM
i'm not "anti-Jaque" like many here seem to be. Seems to be reliable and pretty consistent overall. He'd probably be more predicatble and less of a ? mark then what the Sox have in CF and LF. He would cost a bit of $$ but consistency at the ML level usually does.

Biggest thing is that there is simply NO room for him. If Pods can be back fairly soon they'll already have 4 OFers and that is not even counting Sweeney, Macko, Ozuna. Would need to retool the roster for him. If they're gonna do that it should be for a premeir type player.

D. TODD
01-25-2007, 03:44 PM
Jones is solid, and he can help in some areas . He has his deficiencies as well, which limit his (4 million$) value considerably. Erstad costs next to nothing, and will be the "Ross Gload" of the team which is a fine role for him and his deteriorating skills. I don't think Jones is terrible, but I would pass on going after him. Plus what would we lose to trade for him? Erstad costs us NOTHING!

White Sox Randy
01-25-2007, 03:50 PM
Personally, I think you and Randy are the same person. :dunno:

Either that, or you're long lost brothers.

Personally, I think that you just like to argue.

Have you ever heard of Rick Hahn ? He was just interviewed and talked about how Pods injury is very serious for him and that they have to make certain that he's 100 % before they bring him back.

I'll make a bet with you right now that he's not playing before May 15th - probably more like June 1st.

jenn2080
01-25-2007, 03:56 PM
Personally, I think you and Randy are the same person. :dunno:

Either that, or you're long lost brothers.

Well ya got to give Randy credit at least he sticks around to argue his points.

maurice
01-25-2007, 03:59 PM
He takes up a spot on our 25 man that could have been given to a much, much more productive player

Name every "much, much more productive player" who could (1) play for the Sox, (2) back up CF, and (3) cost $750 or less.

Much, much more productive player? Hmmm...Rob Mackowiak. He seems to be the odd man out, and it is a travesty.

(1) I strongly disagree that Estad is taking a spot on the 25-man roster away from Rob Mackowiak. (2) Mackowiak has proven that he can't play CF. (3) Mackowiak makes more money than Erstad.

I have my own concerns that Ozzie may not use these guys correctly, but that's a different issue.

What would the best move have been? Let some other team have Erstad.

Making your backup CF . . . who?

White Sox Randy
01-25-2007, 04:05 PM
From what I can gather from most of the posts:

1. People would rather finish in second place with 91 wins than first place with 94 wins if the Sox had to pay $ 4 mil. for another player and trade a prospect for him.

2. People would jump out windows if the Sox got rid of any of Pablo Ozuna, Scotti PoPo, Mack. or Erstad. to make room for a 30 homer man.

3. It's impossible to keep Jones and Erstad on the same team. What's wrong with an outfield of Jones, Anderson, Erstad and Dye ?

4. If Pods is not the leadoff hitter then all is lost. No one's ever heard of Kevin Youklis or lots of other players that have been good leadoff hitters despite not being base stealers.

5. Despite the fact that Erstad had ANKLE surgery, will be 33 this year and he himself has recently stated that he is not healed as of yet - he's still going to be a great outfielder and will last the whole season. Yet, the Angels who've just had Tim Salmon retire, Juan Rivera break his leg and have injury prone Garrett Anderson didn't feel the need to keep him.

6. Erstad is a great player even though he's hit a grand total of 37 homeruns over the last 6 years, averages about 40 extra base hits in a full season, doesn't walk much, strikes out a lot (over 100 times in 3 different seasons) and basically hasn't had a good year since 2000. But, since he doesn't smile when he plays and he tries hard that will mean more wins for the White Sox.

7. Erstad is going to be great for the Sox because he cost them nothing. And, if we have to pay a player and trade something for him then it can't possibly be worth it even if that player helps us win more games.

8. When it appeared that the cubs would sign Erstad, everyone laughed at them but now that the Sox have him, he's gonna be great. Also, since Jones played for the cubs last year , Sox fans don't want him winning any games for the Sox.

maurice
01-25-2007, 04:16 PM
From what I can gather from most of the posts:

From what I gather, you have some serious issues with reading comprehension.

People would rather finish in second place with 91 wins than first place with 94 wins if the Sox had to pay $ 4 mil. for another player and trade a prospect for him.

This is exactly what a pro-Hendry Cub fan would think. Unfortunately for them and for you, every $4 mil. spent does not automatically give you 3 wins.

People would jump out windows if the Sox got rid of any of Pablo Ozuna, Scotti PoPo, Mack. or Erstad. to make room for a 30 homer man.

No, people would rather have a leadoff hitter than a 30 HR man. If $4 mil. and a prospect can get us a really good leadoff hitter, then we'd be packing Podsednik's bags for him. This isn't fantasy baseball. Kevin Youklis (1) is not a good leadoff hitter, (2) does not play for the Sox, and (3) cannot be had for $4 mil. and a prospect.

The Red Sox don't even believe that Youklis is a good leadoff hitter. The reason that the Red Sox batted Youklis leadoff was (1) they lost Damon, (2) Crisp was injured, (3) Crisp wasn't very good in 2006, and (4) they had nobody else. The result was a disapointing season with no playoff appearance.

Despite the fact that Erstad had ANKLE surgery, will be 33 this year and he himself has recently stated that he is not healed as of yet - he's still going to be a great outfielder and will last the whole season.

Nobody said either of these things, though sitting on the bench likely would increase his durability. What has been said, OTOH, is even if Erstad sucks, you can cut him loose for very little (see Pollitte, Takatsu, etc.).

Flight #24
01-25-2007, 04:25 PM
Much, much more productive player? Hmmm...Rob Mackowiak. He seems to be the odd man out, and it is a travesty. He is worlds better than Erstad. We shouldn't be concerned about money when you consider we just gave Pods a pretty good contract when he's in steady decline and might not be able to walk when spring training starts.

What would the best move have been? Let some other team have Erstad.
Mack can't play CF. For that matter, neither can Jones. End of story. Unless you don't think having a backup in case Anderson struggles again is useful. Or unless you think it's smart to have a rookie like Sweeney sitting on the bench most days instead of getting ABs in AAA.

From what I can gather from most of the posts:


It's about putting a team together. You need balance for that, especially on the bench. Scottie's out for 6-8 weeks, which means he's ready to start training at the end of ST. So you're looking at maybe 6 weeks into the season. Once he's back, he's the guy. Unless you're saying you'd rather have Jock Jones than Pods in LF, which is a whole different (and if Pods is healthy, incorrect) statement.

This is about who's the best 4th OF. That guy has to be able to play CF, which rules out Ozuna, Mack, Jones. If you make Jones your guy and keep Erstad, then you're talking about having 2 bench guys whose primary position is OF. That means you have to cut someone like Mack, Ozuna, Cintron (or go with 10 pitchers).

Cintron = only backup SS
Mack = backup 1B/3B
Ozuna = speed off bench/pinch runner

Dumping one of these for Jones creates a significant hole on the bench. And dumping Erstad for Jones means you have no one who can play CF and spell Anderson.

The only way this works is if you commit to making Pods your 4th OF/speed off the bench and cut Ozuna. But really that's a decision that when they're both healthy you'll start Jones and sit Pods - so who leads off? And do you really want a low-average slugger in a slug-heavy lineup or would you rather have more speed?

That's the real calculus involved. The cost and trade chips required are gravy in terms of making Jones a non-starter.

White Sox Randy
01-25-2007, 04:35 PM
Flight, it's not about the 4th OFer. I clearly stated that I would keep Erstad/Anderson in center.

Yes, at this point, I would rather have Jones than Pods as the LFer. Pods wasn't good last year, is out for about 2 months (and I believe the games count in the first 2 months) and when he comes back is unlikely to be any more effective than he was last year.

Would the Sox have to find a new leadoff man ? Yes. Having a basestealing leadoff man is WAY overrated. Besides we don't know what kind of shape Uribe will show up in. He might lose his job to Cintron and he could lead off.

Flight #24
01-25-2007, 04:47 PM
Would the Sox have to find a new leadoff man ? Yes. Having a basestealing leadoff man is WAY overrated.

This is a different debate. And one that's been beaten to death. I believe speed has value, you do not. End of discussion.

FWIW, Jock's OBP the past few years: .334, .319, .315, .333
Meanwhile, Podsednik's: .330, .351, .313, .379

Jacque hits more HRs, that's true. But that's about all he does. The Sox have plenty of HR hitters: Thome, Dye, Konerko, Crede, and even guys like Uribe, Iguchi, AJ have solid power given their positions on the field.

What they need more than another K-prone slugger is a guy with speed who can get on base. I'm not claiming Pods is incredible at those, but he is better than Jones at the things the Sox need. Alex Cintron is NOT that guy, not with OBPs around .300. If Uribe can't be the starting SS, the Sox will need to look elsewhere because Cintron is not a guy who can do it for a full season. He's a great sub/bench guy, but not a starter.

oeo
01-25-2007, 04:48 PM
Personally, I think that you just like to argue.

Have you ever heard of Rick Hahn ? He was just interviewed and talked about how Pods injury is very serious for him and that they have to make certain that he's 100 % before they bring him back.

I'll make a bet with you right now that he's not playing before May 15th - probably more like June 1st.

Isn't that what you're doing right now? Isn't that what a message board is for?

I'm a Sox fan, so yes, I know who Rick Hahn is. And I already know that Pods will not be ready by opening day...but in your post you said he won't be back for 'at least 2 months'. That's just speculation...just like your speculating that Erstad isn't healthy, and that Jockstrap Jones would do good things for our starting lineup, and that Gavin Floyd isn't capable, and blah blah blah.

I don't bet, especially on anything that has to do with the White Sox.

santo=dorf
01-25-2007, 05:11 PM
I asked it before, and I'll ask it again; when was the last time the Sox had a "true" back up CF? Rowand was one in 2003 only because we were marching out Carl Everett (barely a corner outfielder) into center each day.

Jones is good for hitting against RHP, but he is too reluctant to accept a platoon role. Now that we have Erstad (who I think won't make much of an impact and/or Ozzie will misuse him) there's really no point in going after Jock Strap.

Flight #24
01-25-2007, 05:16 PM
FWIW, in 817 ABs v. RHP in the past 3 years, Erstad's hit .296 with a .345 OBP. That, the ability to handle the bat/execute offensively as needed, and the ability to play a decent CF is why this is a great signing. Factor in the dirt-cheap cost, and I have no clue how anyone could be upset.

If this guy were signed as a full-time OF, I could see it. But as a part-timer? *****.

And remember - the official word is that he'll "compete with Anderson in CF and Ozuna/Iguchi to lead off", meaning that he's being given neither a slot in CF or in LF.

WizardsofOzzie
01-25-2007, 05:19 PM
Jermaine Dye 2006 season: 44 hr, 120 RBI, .315/.385/.622, 118 Ks in 539 AB
Jacque Jones 2006 season: 27 hr, 81 RBI, .285/.334/.499, 116 Ks in 533 AB

I'll let JD strike out twice more if he can give me 17 more HR, 39 more RBI, .30 better in BA, 51 points better in OBP, .123 more in SLG.

Don't compare the two, you're just embrassing yourself.
Good call :thumbsup:

Jjav829
01-25-2007, 05:26 PM
Making your backup CF . . . who?

Carlos Pena.

Oh wait, he actually did suggest signing Pena over Erstad. :?:

chaerulez
01-25-2007, 05:35 PM
Did you watch Jacque Jones at all in 2006? Well, being a White Sox fan I don't blame you if you didn't. But if you didn't you shouldn't be talking up Jones like he's a team savior. I did watch my fair share of Cubs games. What I saw was an average fielder at best with terrible plate discpline. His base running skills were very similar to Moises Alou's (meaning: bad) and he can't hit left handed pitching at all. Plus the guy seems like a tool. Jacque Jones may hep out the Kansas City Royals or Washington Nationals, but he does not have a place for the White Sox. Matt Murton is the guy the White Sox should target if they ever wanted to get someone from the Cubs to play LF.

maurice
01-25-2007, 05:45 PM
FWIW, in 817 ABs v. RHP in the past 3 years, Erstad's hit .296 with a .345 OBP.

This is excellent news, especially when you consider that Ozzie almost always starts Ozuna against LHP.

In 241 ABs v. LHP, Ozuna's hit .315 with a .350 OBP.

:gulp:

caulfield12
01-25-2007, 05:49 PM
And, Erstad is a Gold Glove caliber 1B who can spell Konerko and avoids us having to risk a Thome injury if Konerko needs to sit or goes on the DL.

As someone mentioned, we spent more money on Ben Davis, or for Hermanson to sit out last season. This is a no-brainer, he goes Jeff Nelson on us and there's little lost, but much to be gained if he's at least 85-90%. He would have fit in well on the 05 team.

KW was looking at Shannon Stewart and Erstad, Darin wanted less money and was closer to being ready to play and less of a risk in the role KW foresaw for him....to be able to back-up CF, play some LF and 1B. Stewart, it would be comical for him to play either LF or 1B. There's almost no one with that combination of skills in baseball, much less a player earning less than $1 million.

WizardsofOzzie
01-25-2007, 05:51 PM
Good comparison. Except Jones is 6 years younger and has a lifetime BA about 30 points HIGHER.

Did I forget to mention that Jones has been AWESOME in the post season ? In 60 postseason games he hit 12 homers and batted.331 with a .372 OBP.


Ahem

In Podsednik's absence, Erstad could once again find himself getting extensive time in the leadoff slot. Erstad has a .339 postseason average in 29 games, with three home runs and 12 RBIs.http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20070125&content_id=1786370&vkey=news_cws&fext=.jsp&c_id=cws&partnered=rss_cws

PennStater98r
01-25-2007, 06:03 PM
Excuse me while I blow chunks all over this idea.

:puking:

I just threw up in my mouth a little.

Domeshot17
01-25-2007, 07:00 PM
As said earlier, you want to watch and cheer for Jaque Jones, he is only 20 minutes down the road. With the line of thinking you 2 have, you both would fit in very well at wrigley.

Craig Grebeck
01-25-2007, 09:49 PM
As said earlier, you want to watch and cheer for Jaque Jones, he is only 20 minutes down the road. With the line of thinking you 2 have, you both would fit in very well at wrigley.
My bad, I thought having a league average or better player at a corner outfield position might be a necessity, but if you want to stick with your grindin' DL guys, be my guest.

Way to pigeonhole me though, I really appreciate the respect you show towards other viewpoints. Classy, as always.

chisoxmike
01-25-2007, 10:15 PM
I think the Sox would win more games in 2007 if Jacque Jones were the leftfielder.

The Sox could keep the Anderson/Erstad situation in center.

Jones should not be playing RF but he is very adequate in LF and the guy can hit. He also has some speed and is completely healthy.

I would guess that he could hit about .290 30 90 with the Sox easily. That's far better production than they will get with the mix that they are talking about.

Plus, he takes pressure off people by not having to rush or play people that are not totally healthy yet like Pods and Erstad. Also, they shouldn't feel the need to rush Sweeney or even Anderson so much yet.

Lastly, they get another guy that wants to beat the Twins. The flubs are dying to get rid of him. What would the Sox have to give up to get him ?

There's no doubt that he can hit, hit with power, play LF, has decent speed, is totally healthy and available. He has a few flaws but I like him better than what the Sox have now.

This calls for this...

http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g15/lawrence79/nooooo.jpg

caulfield12
01-25-2007, 10:18 PM
My bad, I thought having a league average or better player at a corner outfield position might be a necessity, but if you want to stick with your grindin' DL guys, be my guest.

Way to pigeonhole me though, I really appreciate the respect you show towards other viewpoints. Classy, as always.

If we have an above league average ERA (both starters and relievers), we'll be fine. Other than that, Jacque Jones, Grace Jones or Janet Jones won't make much of a difference in LF.

A. Cavatica
01-26-2007, 12:28 AM
Kevin Youklis (1) is not a good leadoff hitter, (2) does not play for the Sox, and (3) cannot be had for $4 mil. and a prospect.

The Red Sox don't even believe that Youklis is a good leadoff hitter. The reason that the Red Sox batted Youklis leadoff was (1) they lost Damon, (2) Crisp was injured, (3) Crisp wasn't very good in 2006, and (4) they had nobody else. The result was a disapointing season with no playoff appearance.

I don't want to hijack this thread from the well-deserved Jones-bashing, but Youkilis did score 100 runs and drive in 72 last season. My wife's family is all Red Sox fans and I've never heard them blame their season on Youkilis.

And now, back to regularly scheduled programming.

IndianWhiteSox
01-26-2007, 01:28 AM
My bad, I thought having a league average or better player at a corner outfield position might be a necessity, but if you want to stick with your grindin' DL guys, be my guest.

Way to pigeonhole me though, I really appreciate the respect you show towards other viewpoints. Classy, as always.

Key words Crebeck:

League average or better something that Jockstrap isn't. At this rate I'd rather have this guy in LF:


:pudge

Yes I know he was a Hall of Fame C and he is my favorite catcher of all time but just not in LF.

102605
01-26-2007, 01:32 AM
I refuse to read 1 word in this thread.

IndianWhiteSox
01-26-2007, 06:02 AM
As said earlier, you want to watch and cheer for Jacque Jones, he is only 20 minutes down the road. With the line of thinking you 2 have, you both would fit in very well at wrigley.
:roflmao::roflmao::roflmao::roflmao:

mshake10
01-26-2007, 10:50 AM
I think he's be a great pick up, just not for this team this year.

Power wise, you're set with Konerko, Thome, Dye, and Crede. And unless you start getting your leadoff guy from other position, you can't have him replace Pods. Plus with pure financial issues ($750k compared to $5 mil plus extra players), it makes sense to go with Erstad this year.

Yeah his arm sucks, but so what. You can't have gold glove defense at every position (see Pods).

I'd revisit this in a year. He could be a good one year rental in place of Dye should he not come back. And seeing what we got for Garcia, we should be giving up significantly less for him in a trade.

mshake10
01-26-2007, 10:58 AM
Key words Crebeck:

League average or better something that Jockstrap isn't. At this rate I'd rather have this guy in LF:


Yes I know he was a Hall of Fame C and he is my favorite catcher of all time but just not in LF.
What do you consider league average in a corner outfield?

caulfield12
01-26-2007, 11:55 AM
What do you consider league average in a corner outfield?

.275, 25-35 homers, 75-95 RBI's. Pretty much Joe Crede playing LF.

D. TODD
01-26-2007, 12:26 PM
.275, 25-35 homers, 75-95 RBI's. Pretty much Joe Crede playing LF. Then Jacque definitely qualifies by your own standards. He hit .285 with 27 HR and 81 rbi last year. I am in no way changing my opinion of passing on J. Jones for the Sox though. I was just surprised how Jones fit so snuggly into your criteria. I would think the league average for corner outfielders is a bit below those numbers though.

IndianWhiteSox
01-26-2007, 12:31 PM
I think he's be a great pick up, just not for this team this year.

Power wise, you're set with Konerko, Thome, Dye, and Crede. And unless you start getting your leadoff guy from other position, you can't have him replace Pods. Plus with pure financial issues ($750k compared to $5 mil plus extra players), it makes sense to go with Erstad this year.

Yeah his arm sucks, but so what. You can't have gold glove defense at every position (see Pods).

I'd revisit this in a year. He could be a good one year rental in place of Dye should he not come back. And seeing what we got for Garcia, we should be giving up significantly less for him in a trade.

As anti-Cub like and hysterical that would be, you would also have to consider the free agent market which will be the best crop of free agents in a few years, especially in the market for OF. So no Jones wouldn't fit the bill so to speak.

What do you consider league average in a corner outfield?

Pretty much what Caufield said

IndianWhiteSox
01-26-2007, 12:33 PM
Then Jacque definitely qualifies by your own standards. He hit .285 with 27 HR and 81 rbi last year. I am in no way changing my opinion of passing on J. Jones for the Sox though. I was just surprised how Jones fit so snuggly into your criteria.

Yea but those in Wrigley translate to something like this in the Cell:

.260/22/78

I say that because as much of a home run hitting ballpark as the Cell is, Wrigley Field is that 2 or 3 times more.

maurice
01-26-2007, 12:45 PM
I'm not saying that Youkilis is a bad player. I'm saying he's not a leadoff hitter. Neither are Manny and Papi, to use extreme examples . . . but, if some idiot manager put them there, they'd still score 100+ runs and drive in 70+ runs. Nonetheless, the team would be better served if they batted elsewhere.

The Red Sox put Youkilis there because they had no choice. He's better suited for a different slot and, if Crisp were healthy and productive, Youkilis would have been in a different slot. In other words, even the Red Sox realize that they'd win more games with a prototypical leadoff man and with Youkilis lower in the order. More wins = possible playoff berth in 2006.

mshake10
01-26-2007, 01:51 PM
Yea but those in Wrigley translate to something like this in the Cell:

.260/22/78

I say that because as much of a home run hitting ballpark as the Cell is, Wrigley Field is that 2 or 3 times more.
Wrigley is a better home run park, but Jones hit more on the road (12-15), although he did have more hits, doubles, and RBIs at home.

And you're right about the free agent market being pretty good next year. But if Kenny bitches and moans again about their prices again, then Jones might be good as a one-year fill in.

IndianWhiteSox
01-26-2007, 01:55 PM
Wrigley is a better home run park, but Jones hit more on the road (12-15), although he did have more hits, doubles, and RBIs at home.

And you're right about the free agent market being pretty good next year. But if Kenny bitches and moans again about their prices again, then Jones might be good as a one-year fill in.

Although he may be a decent one-year fill in, that would mean two things have happened:

1.) The Sox have lost Dye or Konerko

2.) The Sox have lost 3 good prospects to the sCrUBS of all people for a one-year rental.

Just too many things for someone of Jones' level.

mshake10
01-26-2007, 09:01 PM
Although he may be a decent one-year fill in, that would mean two things have happened:

1.) The Sox have lost Dye or Konerko

2.) The Sox have lost 3 good prospects to the sCrUBS of all people for a one-year rental.

Just too many things for someone of Jones' level.

Konerko? I'm talking about a pure replacement in right field (although he'd be better in left) for Dye who's a free agent. What does Konerko, a first baseman, have to do with it?

If a 17-game winner in the final year of his contract only gets you two prospects, then an offensive league average corner outfielder with terrible defense in the final year of his contract should cost you even less. Unless of course, you think he's worth more than Freddy.

IndianWhiteSox
01-27-2007, 02:01 AM
Konerko? I'm talking about a pure replacement in right field (although he'd be better in left) for Dye who's a free agent. What does Konerko, a first baseman, have to do with it?

If a 17-game winner in the final year of his contract only gets you two prospects, then an offensive league average corner outfielder with terrible defense in the final year of his contract should cost you even less. Unless of course, you think he's worth more than Freddy.

I only said Konerko because if the SOX somehow in their wildest dreams got rid of him, then JD would move to 1B.

caulfield12
01-27-2007, 05:44 AM
We need to resign Dye before we worry about losing Konerko and replacing him at 1B.

IndianWhiteSox
01-27-2007, 07:56 AM
We need to resign Dye before we worry about losing Konerko and replacing him at 1B.

Most definitely!:cool:

The Immigrant
01-27-2007, 08:40 AM
I agree with Randy.

That should set off your internal alarm.

caulfield12
01-27-2007, 09:17 AM
If anything, Jacque Jones statistically and in the on-deck circle has always looked more like an impact player than the reality of J. Jones.

He's nothing more than an overpaid platoon player at this point in his career.

IndianWhiteSox
01-27-2007, 12:28 PM
Well said

Taliesinrk
01-27-2007, 04:27 PM
he's a prick.. pass

SOXSINCE'70
01-27-2007, 04:49 PM
HELL NO!

I second this emotion!!

dickallen15
01-27-2007, 07:28 PM
If Jones is the LF, WHO LEADS OFF?
I've got news for you, Pods isn't exactly an ideal leadoff hitter himself.

IndianWhiteSox
01-28-2007, 03:05 AM
I've got news for you, Pods isn't exactly an ideal leadoff hitter himself.

So leadoff hitters aren't supposed to steal 30+ bases, hit around .270-.300 and take at least 4 pitches an AB. But you''re right he isn't a prototypical lead-off man himself.
:rolleyes:

Craig Grebeck
01-28-2007, 09:42 AM
So leadoff hitters aren't supposed to steal 30+ bases, hit around .270-.300 and take at least 6 pitches an AB. But you''re right he isn't a prototypical lead-off man himself.
:rolleyes:
Barely four (which is good, I'm not griping with Scott, just this poster's inability to make sense with this post).

IndianWhiteSox
01-28-2007, 12:36 PM
I read somewhere that he takes and AVG of 6 pitches per AB.

caulfield12
01-28-2007, 01:21 PM
I read somewhere that he takes and AVG of 6 pitches per AB.


Pods 4.07, Dye is actually a little better, 4.10

OzzieAmigo
01-31-2007, 06:19 PM
Pods 4.07, Dye is actually a little better, 4.10

Where'd you get these stats? From Granticus Foolicus?

caulfield12
01-31-2007, 07:23 PM
MLB "Extended Stats" at espn.com

Grzegorz
01-31-2007, 10:07 PM
Jeez, I hope the season starts soon.

seventyseven
02-01-2007, 09:41 AM
I read somewhere that he takes and AVG of 6 pitches per AB.

So does Jacque Jones. 2 swings and a miss at inside fastballs. Fouls 3 more off his foot. Swings through 1 that would have hit him. Six.

Then he blames the crowd.

Thome25
02-01-2007, 09:43 AM
I've got news for you, Pods isn't exactly an ideal leadoff hitter himself.

Pods was and is suffering through a series of nagging injuries that has severely hurt his production.

Shows that we as fans don't always know what's going on behind the scenes.

PatK
02-01-2007, 12:19 PM
i'm not "anti-Jaque" like many here seem to be. Seems to be reliable and pretty consistent overall.

Consistent? He's may be streakier than Uribe.

The only thing he does consistently is swing at the first pitch and play sub-par defense.

IndianWhiteSox
02-01-2007, 01:19 PM
I can't believe this thread is over a 100 posts!:o:

palehozenychicty
02-01-2007, 01:43 PM
Jeez, I hope the season starts soon.

After the Super Bowl, pitchers and catchers report in less than two weeks...

:bandance: